9.5 Theses from Wittenberg

When I suggested I might post 9.5 Theses from Wittenberg (a poor substitute for the 95 Theses Martin Luther supposedly nailed to the door of the Schlosskirche in 1517), I didn’t think it would be too difficult.

It is.

It is commonly thought that Luther, angry with the dodgy theology of the Pope, launched the Reformation and split the Church. However, Luther was doing more than this. The Church was raising funds to build St Peter’s in Rome by selling forgiveness and guarantees of heaven to gullible sinners. His protest was not just at the control-freakery of the Roman Catholic Church and its dodgy theology of atonement, but was also a strike against the political, cultural and economic power of the day. It was rooted in theology, but was aimed at ‘the Powers’.

So, against whom would he protest today? Not just the Church, but those political and cultural ‘powers’ that imprison people in today’s world. He went to the heart of what made life worth living for people of his world: key to this was the radical idea that you could be made right with God (happy?) without being manipulated by the Church. So, the Theses I propose here are aimed at wider targets than just the Church, but they include the Church.

Anyway, here goes (but I admit it sounds a bit trite – I can’t work up the anger of a Luther and it’s late):

1. Today’s big lie is that you can earn or buy happiness. Consumer culture is seductive, but things won’t being you joy. Nor will working yourself to death. There is more to life than ‘stuff’. Freedom from our slavery to consumer culture can be found in discovering that we are known by a God who cannot be surprised.

2. Systems are supposed to serve people, not the other way round. Visa does not make the world go around. Money might bring power, but it does not necessarily bring freedom and it certainly brings accountability. If banks cannot be allowed to fail, why can millions of poor people? If banks can be saved, why is it the poorest who will suffer the most?

3. Economic decisions have moral consequences – what is done in one part of the world affects real people everywhere else. Everything is connected and moral responsibility for the fate of others cannot be ducked. (That also goes for discouraging use of condoms in Africa…)

4. The material world should not be exploited by today’s powerful or greedy consumers, the price being paid by our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. We must be prepared to pay a price for reducing our consumer demands. Responsibility means making hard choices now.

5. Celebrity culture is a form of distraction therapy from the reality of the world. Think of Weimar Berlin… or Marx’s ‘opiate of the people’ observation (which he aimed at religion). Ask why our media collude in this destructive and ridiculous fantasy.

6. Get a sense of perspective. Human beings might be clever, but we are not omnicompetent and we are expert in screwing up the world, ourselves and our societies. It is not clever to be selective in our historical remembering, harbouring grievances from long ago that serve merely to fuel (justify?) our corporate resentments and narcissism. (And, pace the French, you can’t just pretend Europe’s Christian history – for good or ill – did not happen…)

7. Security will only be found where the security of ‘the other’ is also protected. Building fences and walls will not ultimately protect – just prolong (and justify?) the cycles of violence. Love of one’s neighbour makes forgiveness possible and new relationships imaginable. Self-protection without regard to the security of others is futile.

8. Those who hold others to account must themselves be made accountable. Freedom of the press cannot be extricated from the responsibility of the press to act justly, fairly and accountably. If no other group (MPs, for example) can be trusted to police themselves, then why should the media be allowed to do so?

9. Hierarchies of victimhood are a symptom of a feeble, introspective and rootless culture. Some Christians (including the Pope) and others who think Christians are being ‘persecuted’ in Europe need to drop the whingeing. Vigorous debate should be enjoined with confidence, joy and freedom. Not surprisingly, this demands a recovery of intellectual rigour and apologetic confidence.

9.5. The Christian Church should get into perspective its primary vocation which is to look, feel and sound like the Jesus we read about in the Gospels. Anything else is a fraud. The divisions between Christians – and the ways they are expressed – are a scandal, an offence and a distraction for the world that needs to discover joy, freedom, forgiveness, new life and generosity.

OK, this is a start. I could have written 9.5 specifically addressed to the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope while he is in my country and I am at the birthplace of the Protestant Reformation. I could have addressed them to the Church of England, business, the banks, the ubiquitous gambling industry or the military. I could have addressed them directly to myself. It all gets a bit confusing in the end.

So, there is my ‘starter for 9.5’ (as it were). Over to you for your ‘Theses’ to ‘the powers of this world’.

25 Responses to “9.5 Theses from Wittenberg”

I think that’s a pretty good list to start with. If we could get those sorted out, we could probably round it up to an even ten.

I sometimes think that the current generation of politicians are much more venal, corrupt, and amibitious than their predecessors, and then I have second thoughts, and wonder how much is just media hype.

I think that the arguments over exploiting the world’s material environment by things like mining forget one very important factor, science. Just as the pill gave people the freedom to choose how they have behaved since the 60s, so science will give the technology to exploit space for the benefit of every one. The technology is available to create energy capture from the environment in sustainable ways, mining asteroids or the moon is within the reach of mankind within the next 50 years. I believe God gave man the capability to exploit these things, and also the ability to repair the damage caused. You just drive up the Rhondda Valley today, not a pit or slag heap in sight.

I like all of those and agree. They work because they’re equally aimed at “powers” as at the individual and they’re specific enough to be powerful but open enough for everyone to fill them with their own meaning.

The last one worries me slightly, though, because I think “living more like Jesus” and “stopping division” is what we all want. But the deeper and more intractable problem is that we all have completely different ideas of what this means and how it can be achieved.
Your “re-assertion of Christian values” is my “moralistic back to the future”, and my “Genuine Christian responsibility of the individual before God” is your “liberal agenda-driven individualism”.

It’s always easier when we can agree on what the wrongs are that have to be put right in society. The problem with Christianity is that your wrong is my right and vice versa.

The few “tweaks” I might make seem insignificant to me today as I am in a mellow mood and must share with you the highlight of my Grandson’s Baptism this morning.

As our priest was holding him and praying, he fixed her with that kind of concentrated stare that is a one year old’s speciality, until she finished, proclaiming that he was the heir to the” inheritance of the saints in glory”.

At this point he broke into a broad smile and gave her spontaneous and enthusiastic applause!

Out of the mouths of babes I suppose.

Anyway, when you have that to cheer you up, Theses don’t energise one quite so much.

What! Only 9.5 theses that’s post modern theology for you. What’s next The 10 Suggestions? You can bet Ian Paisley wouldn’t have been so economical.

Nick, I read all of your book ‘Finding Faith’ yesterday. It’s been awhile since I’ve read a book in a day (if Wallander had been on last night I wouldn’t have). First congratulations on not mentioning CS Lewis it’s a very rare accomplishment these days. It continues to baffle me how many modern books on Christianity cite him as both a inspiration and good theologian. If anybody wants a clear and intellectually persuasive argument for faith then look no further than GK Chesterton same era and available as free downloads on the Gutenburg website.

I read a lot of books like this, most of the popular ones and a number of American ones as well. (readers note I have no faith) Mostly they are a disappointment for all sorts of reasons. But I loved this book Nick it takes a lot for me to be moved almost to real tears, but you got me going. And you introduced me to a musician I have never heard of to wit one Bruce Cockburn and thanks to the wonders of the internet. I was able to get his music on Spotify and see if he really is that good. All your other music choices were spot on and so’s Bruce, thanks for that.

We are of similar ages although I am 7 years older than you (so I’m 7 years wiser) and it felt at times like I was reliving my youth. The music the fashions the politics etc although my background is working class think Frank McCourt without the silver spoon and the nuns. I am not going to list the ways in which it was so good just to say it was profound at times. Which is the highest compliment I can give. I am going to post it to an American Pastor I know and respect and tell him to stop with the Rick Warren and read this.

If I have a small complaint, it is that you don’t give the non believers a fair crack of the whip. There is a small group of people who like me whilst agreeing with many of the views that the deadly trio Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris espouse . The atheists version of the father son and holy ghost? We do not believe yet we do not despise those who do or even think them (all) stupid. I am sure you have read Philip Larkin’s great poem Church Going? and that marvelous poem by Matthew Arnold ‘Dover Beech’ These poems I think express how we feel, more melancholic and bereft than contemptuous. I sometimes go to church and always go inside new ones I find on my travels (if open many are not)
…………………………………………………….
A serious house on serious earth it is,
In whose blent air all our compulsions meet,
Are recognized, and robed as destinies.
And that much never can be obsolete,
Since someone will forever be surprising
A hunger in himself to be more serious,
And gravitating with it to this ground,
Which, he once heard, was proper to grow wise in,
If only that so many dead lie round.

Part of Larkin’s poem
………………………………………………………
In fact it has struck me more than once that I seem to be getting more out of being in church than some of my fellow members on the pews. I listen to the message and think if I believed this it would make more difference than it seems to do to many believers. I reconise the uniqueness of Christianity it is not like other religions. Is not just about a mystical experience it is not about following a set of rules or customs. No it is a way of being a human being I get it. But can’t believe what one has to believe to become one.

On the other hand a Christian commentator named Christian Smith coined a phrase for a modern form of Christianity he called “Moral Therapeutic Deism. or MTD for short. In a nut shell it’s tenets are these.

This religion is characterized by five beliefs:
–There is a God who created earth and watches over it
–God wants people to be nice, fair and good (as it taught in the Bible and most other religions)
–The central goal of life is to be happy and feel good about yourself
–God doesn’t need to be involved in your life except when there’s a problem that needs Celestial Performance Enhancement
–Good people go to heaven when they die.

“Science, no less that religion, raises questions that draw one inevitably towards the unprovable and the seemingly paradoxical.”

I advance this with reference to two recent developments.

First, the brilliant Stephen Hawking – a theoretician- reasons that God, is not “necessary” to explain the phenomenon of intelligent life and the conditions that are its required precondtions; yet to escape the necessity, he postulates an infinite nunmber of simultaneous
“multiverses” – for which there is not a scintila of objective evidence.

This gives rise to the delicious riposte to Richard Dawkin; to escape our “imaginary friend” (for which, whether he believes it or not, some have offered witness testimony – what some call ” evidence”) – he finds it necessary to have recourse to to an infinity of universes, for which there is and can never be any proof!

The plot became even more difficult in that Professor Hawkin’s thesis is founded upon the idea that a number of what are known as ” Universal Constants” can – given enough time – generate by pure hazard the many and closely calibrated conditions to produce life without an intelligence directing it.

However a couple of months ago New Zealand research evidence suggested that one
” Universal Constant – the electromagnetic constant ( which holds electrons together in matter) may actually be variable in different parts of the universe. If one
“constant” proves to be in fact variable, there is no logical reason to suppose that the others may not be also. This adds massively to the odds against any single universe developing the necessary conditions for life within its own life span.

The fact that there is an infinity of such universes does not help because tossing a coin 50 times which comes down “heads” does not change the probability of the next one landing “tails” beyond 50/50. Massive improbability within one closed system is not improved by the existance of other options.

Another perhaps more easier example of how science lives with paradox arises from the latest calculation of pi ( 22/7). It is called an “imperfect number” because it cannot be expressed ” perfectly”. It’s current value has reached 200 billion billion places – and still counting.

To calculate the area of a circle ( which was interestingly the historic “pefect” form used to represent God)we use the formula pi x r squared. The r squared bit is easy, yet we calculate an area of a known closed circle with reference to a seemingly endless/ infinite number. In short we happily accept scientific paradox every day of our lives and live with it with profit and utility but some, find it so hard to be similarly accepting of religion.

“Some Christians (including the Pope) and others who think Christians are being ‘persecuted’ in Europe need to drop the whingeing.”

Do you really think Christians in Europe – let alone Britain – still have the freedom to speak pacifically and critically on homosexuality, Islam, abortion etc in articulating traditional beliefs and not suffer in their jobs and maybe in other ways, including prosecution for ‘hate speech’ or threats against their persons? If so, you haven’t paid much attention to a whole slew of legislation and events in recent years. Try talking to the Bishop of Chester (visited by the police for some remarks on homosexuality); or a street preacher in Cumbria; or the former Bishop of Rochester.
Do you remember how the world (including Guardianistas) jumped to defend Salman Rushdie in 1989 after his ‘Satanic Verses’ incuured the wrath and death threats of Khomeinei? Now some nonentity in Florida threatens to burn a Koran and the world panics. What has changed?

Jim, I seem to be able to read and hear points of view like yours everyday. I wish I didn’t, not that I wish to legally stop you. I just wish politeness and morality were a greater restraint in your case.

Stevedgh, I am glad you don’t wish to outlaw me (yet). But that isn’t necessary – you just need to create a climate of ‘freezing’ people out or chilling debate so that self-censorship becomes the norm, all from fear of “offending”. Are you bothered that the Saudis confiscate and burn Bibles and crosses every day? If not,why not? And why do you think swathes of the Muslim world gets in a lather about a nutjob in Florida? What does that tell you about them?
Perhaps you have never read the gay writer Bruce Bawer’s ‘While Europe Slept’? Nick doesn’t answer my points or engage in debate, he just calls them ‘Daily Mail’ reports (a paper I never read) and the Pope a ‘whinger’. Bishops Peter Forster and Michael Nazir-Ali have indeed been treated exactly as I said, and the world has turned from defending Rushdie to panicking over some cartoons – while Christ is regularly mocked on TV.

To answer some of your points.
First, I think Bishop Nick’s ‘Daily Mail’ riposte was in response to your ‘Guardianistas’ comment. You were using it as a shorthand critique of a world view you disagree with likewise was Nick. I don’t read the Guardian although I have in the past. I read the Independent and a lot more than that and mostly from a political opinion I disagree with. I think it is far too easy only to read views one agrees with. To use a boxing analogy it is just shadow boxing if you only read what you want to hear. The only way you’ll ever become a better boxer is to fight a real person. You’ll never find your strengths and weaknesses unless you do.

I am deeply troubled by how Saudi Arabia treats Christians and The Bible. I in fact personally know Christians who have suffered in Saudi because they were Christians. I don’t mean Westerners I mean people from the Indian subcontinent. Temporary workers who do all the hard physical work, people who live in compounds afraid of the religious police. I have heard them talk about organizing secret prayers and Bible study. There is an underground Christian movement in Saudi. Bibles are smuggled in as are tiny crosses etc. people go through quite humbling suffering for their faith.
So yes I agree with you all countries should allow religious freedom as they should political freedom. Including your right to say what you like about gay people or Guardian readers (or is that a tautology?)

Now to Islam (it’s all right moderator I’m going to be reasonable)

I have not read the book you cited but I Googled the author and read a blog or 2 he had written and of course read readers reviews of ‘While Europe Slept’ I have read numerous books on Islam from all sides of the debate. I have read the Koran in 3 slightly different English translations. Not a great read to be frank but when recited in Arabic by a talented reciter it does sound wonderful it is a sonic masterpiece. You do not need to know Arabic to feel it’s beauty any more than you need Latin to enjoy a Latinate mass. I do think we have tolerated a little more than is wise on the grounds of multi-culturism. Or we have tolerated intolerance.

I started to take an interest in Islam during the Iran Iraq war. After I saw a clip from Iranian television, it showed a group of young boys barely in their teens. The film was made at the frontline between the Iraqi and Iranian troops the young boys were tasked with riding mopeds through a minefield so that the Iranian troops could advance. The idea of course was that the boys on mopeds would set off the mines until there was a wide enough corridor to counter attack. The children were given a plastic key to put round their necks to symbolise the keys to paradise. Now this film was shown on Iranian TV to help the morale of the Iranians it had the opposite effect on me.

I then went to my local Islamic center (I live in Leicester we have a big one). I asked them for a Koran so I could read it and try and make sense of how both sides in the Iran Iraq war could both claim they were on God’s side in the war. I got my Koran lots of leaflets on Islam and had a very long conversation with some of the staff at the center. They were not at all keen to discuss the war. And it was particularly difficult for me to convince them I really did not believe in God and that I had truly given the matter some thought. Devout Christians often seem to have the same problem. I’ve been asked more than once why I hate God so much. A simple I don’t believe in God, so how can I hate him? does not suffice. I’ve tried the ‘Do you believe in Fairies? ‘ maneuver They of course say no, I then ask do you hate fairies? They say how can they hate something they don’t believe in. Alas this doesn’t work they still ask but why do you hate God? even after that lesson.

To some extent I have some sympathy with your point that debate is sometimes shutdown. At times it does seem that any contrarian view is accused of being phobic by someone. But all sides do this if one criticised George Bush one hated America If one found fault with Islam again Islamaphobic If one has sympathy for the Palestinians then It’s anti-Semitism. Why even The Pope got in the act by calling people like me Nazis oh yes he did. He went even further and said I had no morals because I don’t believe in God. His view (very common fallacy) is that any moral point of view not based on the Bible is a mere affectation contingent on self interest and political expediency. Again I deploy personal anecdote to make my point. I have been asked more than once what is to stop me stealing or killing if I don’t fear God’s judgment. I say because it’s wrong and immoral to do these things I’ve worked it out for myself. I act morally (in my small way) because it pains me not to. I do this for myself because I then can feel comfortable in my skin. I don’t do it because I think someone is watching (did you know Muslims believe they each have 2 angels on their shoulders recording everything they say and do in their lives? and that come the day of judgment everything they have said and done will be used to see if they are suitable for paradise. It says in The Koran that if a person even kills a sparrow for no good reason. The sparrow will call O Lord! That person killed me in vain! He did not kill me for any useful purpose. Sorry can’t remember Sura )

Anyway I worry about people who are only morally constrained by their religious beliefs. It is so easy to see how some of them can resort to immorality if they think they have God’s approval.

I’d better stop soon so to your general point about tolerance,
You seem to be wanting your cake and eat it. You complain that some Muslims get upset about Rushdie, cartoons and Koran burning. If you don’t think they should complain about that why do you complain when your point of view is deprecated? Regarding Bishop Forster as I recall the event the police responded to a complaint from a member of the public about him. This is their duty they would do the same for you. He was not charged merely questioned. This does not a police state make. I have seen on television Christian protesters waving banners with the verse from Leviticus 18.22 on them but not 20.12. 20.12 as you must know says male homosexuals should be put to death. When Christians quote 18.22 gay men hear 20.12 as I think is intended. Islam gets its attitude to homosexuality from the Old Testament Moses Abraham Jesus etc are all in The Koran. To my mind a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist no matter which religion or political view they may come from.

Stevedgh,
Thank you for your reply. I hadn’t realized you’re an atheist, but that is my fault for not reading your previous post carefully. I have in fact a fairly detailed knowledge of Islam and of (some) Islamic history and have taught about it. I consider Nazir-Ali one of the most knowledgeable commentators on the subject in the UK. By itself, the Koran makes little sense as it contains no narrative (and the meaning of c. 10% of the text is uncertain); it has to be read in conjunction with the hadiths and the ‘Life’ of Muhammad. The Koran mangles the OT and NT in many places. But I do find it strange that not a few on the agnostic (and often anti-Christian) left simultaneously want to speak respectfully of Islam and yet have no curiosity about the actual teachings of Islam. Willfull ignorance? I suspect the motive is political here, a naive siding with ethnic minorities.
It was not right to “question” Bishop Forster, nor to arrest street preachers in the UK. Little by little liberties are eroded in the name of ‘public safety’ or ‘community cohesion’.
As to whether morality can finally be grounded without a belief in God and the afterlife, in the end I don’t think it can. If we all end up the same, then ‘moral’ and ‘immoral’ acts are pretty much the same, even if some retain a weak religious conscience. Even Kant (a Pietist in his youth), who denied the possibility of knowing for sure that God exists, had to affirm the existence of God as the necessary basis for morality – and so contradicted his own belief in the ultimacy of the good will and duty. Ah, these Prussians ….

Jim, just a very quick reply strictly speaking I call myself an agnostic. I don’t see how anyone can be certain either way. I’m a very big fan of Kant not an easy read though. I agree with your brief summation of his conclusions. I can vividly recall being so impressed by his demolition of the various arguments for God’s existence. And then being equally dismayed by him then saying best to believe (or act if true).
I also agree with your observation about some on the left and their somewhat rosy view of Islam. I even know SWP memembers who have this blind spot. But not me

Stevedgh – thanks; I agree that ‘agnostic’ is better (notionally, anyway) than ‘atheist’ because for a mere human, located ‘in a galaxy far away’ to say he or she ‘knows’ that God doesn’t exist is tantamount to a claim to divine (!) omniscience. Even Richard Dawkins – a miserable thinker if ever existed – understands this. But most agnostics are practical atheists; they live as if God didn’t exist.
Kant is certainly the towering genius of Enlightenment philosophy, but science and philosophy have moved on since the 18th century – just consider Michael Polanyi, for instance. Too much in thrall to Hume, Kant painted himself into a corner with his over-strict division of knowledge and experience. Every thinking person (thank you, Socrates!) has to reckon with these questions:
1. Does the space-time universe have a beginning? If so, how?
2. Can morality be finally true if there is no transcendent basis (in a divine Lawgiver)?
3. Does human rationality have any extra-human bais or is it simply an evolutionary development that aids survival? (Or to ask this in Kantian style, what is the basis of mathematical and other conclusions of reason? How, indeed, do we know that reason is true itself?)
4. Can there be direct experience of non-material things? Is religious experience real or delusion?
4. What do you make of Jesus Christ and the claim that he rose from the dead? Is he legendary or true?
Christian philosophy is a pretty advanced thing today. At the “advanced popular” level there are people like Ravi Zacharias and William Lane Craig; at the cutting edge, Alvin Plantinga (‘Warrants for Belief’) takes on Kant and his epigoni on their own terms. Why not try these out (see ‘Society of Christian Philosophers’ website). Thanks for eirenic discussion.

Jim, Alvin Plantinga was the one who, 25 years ago, opened up the thinking of many of us to a confident exploration of apologetics. I also wonder what you and Stevedgh think of Terry Eagleton’s (I think wonderful) Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate.

Nick, I only know Eagleton’s work through a very robust reply to Dawkins, in which he demonstrates that the Great Public Intellectual doesn’t even understand the topic he’s critiquing. (Nihil novi sub sole.) Someone to reckon with in the future (I should live so long!), but I’m still only on vol. 2 of Copleston (900 pages on & he’s still talking about Aquinas!). I started Platinga’s 500+ page ‘Warrants’ some years back, but the necessity of earning a living put that project on hold. I know that Craig ‘bigs up’ Platinga on his site, & it’s interesting that Platinga, someone from the neo-Calvinian tradition should be teaching in Notre Dame. Arguing that belief in God is ‘properly basic’ is a direct riposte to Kantian liberalsim/skepticism, & the philosophical conuterpart to Calvin’s opening arguments in his Institutes on the sensus divinitatis. Paul Helm is another sharp Reformed mind on the British side of the ditch. I certainly believe that Christians (& certainly Anglicans)should be getting a grasp of popular apologetics at least – & need a good dose of philosophy in their theological training. It’s good to hear that Amy Orr-Ewing, an associate of Ravi Zacharias is doing this work among English students.

“But most agnostics are practical atheists; they live as if God didn’t exist.”

What an astonishing claim!
They may THINK as if God didn’t exist but they certainly don’t LIVE like it.

If you take “by their fruits shall you tell them” seriously, you will find as many Christians who act as if God didn’t exist as you will find agnostics, atheists and believes in other faiths who act as if he did.

“What an astonishing claim!
They may THINK as if God didn’t exist but they certainly don’t LIVE like it.”

You’re right, Erika – I was forgetting the lifestyle of those legions of agnostics who pray each day, say grace before meals, go to church, give generously to charity and share the Gospel with non-agnostics. My mistake – I don’t live in Nephelokokkogia.

Jim
Religious expression is only one small aspect of how a person lives.

You have made the point that faith in God causes us to behave morally, and if you now say that atheists and agnostics don’t live as if God existed you’re implying that they are living selfish, hedonistic lives.

Erika, looking at things ‘sub specie aeternitatis’, I don’t know *anyone* who doesn’t lead (to some extent) a selfish, hedonistic life, nor anyone so good as to deserve eternal life as a reward for their moral achievement. Do you? And I think the man who (allegedly) posted the 95 Theses on the Wittenberger Schlosskirche door would understand exactly what I mean.
Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott,
Ein’ gute Schild und Waffen – I think you know how it goes! 🙂

While it is theologically true that we all need God because we are not ever worthy to be saved because of our own efforts, you would be hard-pressed to look at the daily lives of people and work out from those alone who is a Christian and who isn’t.

That the one hope their lives may be redeemed while the others don’t believe in God is something to do with how they think, believe and feel. It does not necessarily translate into a different way of living, unless externals like going to church and saying grace before meals actually constitute a different kind of living for you, in which case I would say that that is an extremely shallow way of assessing the fruits of people’s lives.

And: “By their fruits shall you tell them” was said by someone who places a greater value on what you do than on what you believe.

No, Erika, I’m not muddled (at least on this point). I am an othodox Anglican Christian who believes in justification by faith in Christ crucifed, not by works of the Law. God alone knows who has truly repented and trusted in the work of Christ on the Cross. I affirm with another Anglican sinner:
‘Weak is the effort of my heart
And cold my warmest thought.
But when I see Thee as Thou art,
I’ll love Thee as I ought.”
The rest of the hymn contains excellent theology too, a riposte to the perennial pelagianism of the ‘religio perrenis’ of the natural man (and woman).

I wrote this awhile ago and thought I had posted it. I wondered why it wasn’t on the blog

I’ve not read any hardcore Christian philosophy for a few years now. I have read Alistair McGrath and Alasdair MacIntyre (I’m doing it alphabetically by given names) recently don’t know how they stack up in the hardcore stakes. I give my remaining brain cells enough exercise with science books. I mean hard thinking the stuff that makes your head hurt. As I get older I still seem to have the interest but not the stamina for spending hours on one thing. And the internet doesn’t help. I’ll look up the authors you both mentioned and see if they are worthy

But talking of Terry Eagleton and his book Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate. By an odd coincidence his book is in my Amazon wish list along with quite a few others (Christmas soon sorry Winterval). I read an interview with him somewhere and looked him up and put his book on that list. What struck me about his theology (as I understood it) is his Christianity seems to be based on his Marxist standpoint. I mean Eagleton sees Jesus as a revolutionary who came to bring justice for the poor and oppressed. Although Marxism is supposed to be an all atheist affair I don’t think it an all together impossible stretch of all things holy to be able to conflate Jesus’ analysis of the world he found himself in with a Marxist analysis. I mean so far as class structure is concerned. Marx’s oft repeated remark about religion being the opium of the people is a lot more nuanced than most people realise. If no one knows the full remark they should try Google. I know Terry Eagleton has coined a rather sarcastic neologism in his writings Hitchkins or is it the other way round?

I hope I’m right about that or my next point will fall flat. When I read Hitchens/Dawkins/Hawkin I get the impression those 3 have different reasons for not believing in a God. Hitchens seems to disbelieve for left wing reasons unlike Eagleton Hitchens associates Christianity with oppression and the status quo and therefore rejects it. Dawkins seems to find it impossible to conflate the Bible with his views on evolution. Hawkin can’t accept it because he’s a cosmologist. I suppose these are reasonable views to take. But I think mistaken in the sense that all 3 just assume religion is primarily just an alternative cosmology or a form of mental weakness. I don’t mean mental illness but rather a form of a psychological need for a father figure etc. It is rather like they could all go to a performance of Handel’s Messiah and complain afterwards that the whole thing is a farce because no one can rise from the dead. Or looking at Dali’s crucifixion painting and pointing out the perspective is wrong. They don’t get the religious experience or perhaps the experience of being religious.

Jim you asked if I thought religious experiences were real? Well it really does mean what you mean by real? I have had a small number of them myself (once even a near death one with the light at the end of the tunnel and seeing myself from above) the last one some years ago. I found myself feeling I was part of the universe (I kid you not) I don’t mean in a theoretical or intellectual sense. I mean in a utterly profound and intensely ecstatic way. I am a child of the 60’s I did all of those things that people did in those days. This experience was a 100 percent natural. I literally felt in a joyous way I was connected to every particle, every wave of of energy in the whole universe, every galaxy. No amount of hyperbole or exaggeration from me could even adumbrate the slightest part of how amazing the experience was.
Now this was not real in the sense that I literally became part of the universe (I was cycling up a hill in Wales when it happened). Although I am literally part of the universe the atoms in my body were once part of a star. I love this fact. However the experience came about and whether it was real in the physical sense of the word. The inarguable truth is the experience was real and it’s effect on me was real. So that’s my answer to your question about religious experiences.

Space time a beginning or always there? I’ll have to get back on you about that one. I want to try and cover the other ones.

Morality without divine input? Yes, almost certainly for me.

What some would call morality I would say is part of our inherited nature. I’m quite keen on EO Wilson and I can see how ‘morality’ has a survival value. We humans (like other animals) need others to survive and as such I see ‘morality’ as a form of self interest. We humans imagine that we are the only moral creatures on the planet. I can develop this point if provoked.

Regarding Jesus’ claim about being the son of God. I don’t think he was and I don’t think Muhammad was really visited by an angel who dictated the Koran to him. I’m afraid to say I’m one of those people CS Lewis warned people about. I think Jesus was a great teacher and exemplar not the son of God. I would think we all are if there is any God. When I read the Bible I get the impression Jesus thought he was the Jewish messiah and he believed he would usher in the Kingdom of God in his life time. I think we can credit/blame his disciples and Paul for Christianity and of course the Roman Empire for taking it up (in the end). I don’t think Jesus would reconise Christianity as practiced today as the authentic reflection of his ministry on earth. I don’t intend to be rude or disrespectful but I don’t see how we have got to here from there. The role of the priest in Catholicism for example (as a vector for God’s grace and forgiveness) and the concept of justification by faith are but two things I find un Biblical. The latter means that there is no place for freewill or morality. It means we are subject to predestination because we are unable to find God under our own steam. The fact that I have no faith but Jim does, means God has chosen not to give me faith but has given it to Jim. It means my fate was sealed the day I was born. It means I’m going to hell and there is nothing I can do to prevent it. It means (spooling back a bit) that Adam was predestined to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and Judas was likewise predestined to betray Jesus. Yes Jim there is a touch of pelagianism in this view. The machinations that went on to bring about modern Christian theology are nothing to be proud about.